IMPORTANT !!!: The biopatent law approved on December 3 by Germany's Bundestag (Parliament), limits patent protection on human gene sequences to "disclosed functions" at the time of the patent application. That means that under German law, a patent awarded to a scientist awarded on a human DNA sequence used for a specific function would not cover a second
function discovered later by another researcher using the same DNA sequence.
This contradicts the intent of the EU Directive to give full patent protection to the discoverer of the human gene sequence, including for new functions discovered
later by other scientists using the same gene sequence. However, applicants can skip the stricter German law by directly applying with the European Patent Office in
Munich which strictly follows the Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, July 30, 1998. This legal way to skip the German law by applying directly with the European Patent Office caused Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a prominent member of the Enquete-Commission of the German Parliament on Ethics and Law in Medicine not to vote in favor of the law during the parliamentary session on Dec 3. As Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (Social Democratic Party (SPD)) stated in "Anlage 8, Erklärung nach § 31 GO", on page 13710 of the parliamentry protocol (see link):"Im Ergebnis gilt die sinnvolle und richtige Einschränkung des Stoffschutzes daher jetzt nur für die zukünftige Erteilung von Patenten durch deutsche Patentämter, nicht aber für die in Deutschland geltenden Patente, die durch das Europäische Patentamt vergeben wurden und werden. Da über 90 Prozent aller Patente auf Gene und Gensequenzen durch das Europäische Patentamt erteilt werden, bleibt die sinnvolle Einschränkung des Stoffschutzes, die das Umsetzungsgesetz für § 1 des deutschen Patentgesetzes vorsieht, praktisch wirkungslos. Es ist durch einen Umweg über das Europäische Patentamt somit weiterhin möglich, für den Geltungsbereich des deutschen Patentgesetzes unbeschränkte Stoffpatente auf Gene zu erhalten."("As a result the meaningful and correct restriction of the material protection applies therefore now only to the future assignments of patents by German patent offices, not however to patents valid in Germany, which were and will be assigned by the European Patent Office.Since over 90 per cent of all patents on genes and gene sequences are assigned by the European Patent Office, the meaningful restriction of the material protection, which the conversion/compliance law wants to be applied to § 1 of the German Patent Act, remains practically ineffective. It is thus further possible by a detour via the European Patent Office to receive for the area of the legal application of the German Patent Act unrestricted material patents on genes.")

German Ethics Council: Historical background: The predecessor of the German Ethics Council, the former German "National" Ethics Committee was installed by former(chancellor) Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schroeder personally to advise him on ethical issues to be debated in the field of modern medicine and all its ramifications. Due to this origin the status of the National Ethics Committee could not be compared to the legal status of the National Ethics Committees of France or Italy for instance. Some critics said that the name of this chancellor-founded committee was a misuse of the word "National". There was a lot of criticism from members of the former Enquete Commission "Law and Ethics in modern medicine" of the German Parliament (Deutsche Bundestag)(15 th session period) concerning establishing an ethical body without parliamentary approval which calls itself "National". The new "German Ethics Council" is now working on the basis of a parliamentary approval. Besides that, the ethical review of clinical trials in Germany is done by ethics committees organized by the respective Landesaerztekammer (chamber of medical authorities) of each federal state or within Medical Faculties. For more information concerning the discussions that took place see the following article in the BERLINER ZEITUNG: Feilschen um den Ethikrat (Bargaining about the Ethics Council)

Gesetz zur Aenderung des Stammzellgesetzes vom 14. August 2008 (Law to change the previous stemcell law) This law which entered into force as from 14 August 2008 contains two important changes compared to the previous stemcell law of 28 June 2002: 1) German Researchers are allowed to use stem cells imported to Germany which have been created before 1 May 2007. According to the stem cell law of 2002 they were only allowed to use imported stem cells created before 1 January 2002. 2) German Researchers will not be punished or even put to jail when they use stem cells abroad which they are not allowed to use in Germany. This follows from Article 1, sentence 3 of the new law of 14 August 2008

PROVISIONAL PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN GENETIC DATA This Provisional Preliminary Draft of the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data has been elaborated by the Drafting Group of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) for consideration by the IBC at its Tenth session (UNESCO House, 12-14 May 2003). It includes the proposals made by the IBC at its Ninth Session (Montreal, Canada, 26-28 November 2002) and the observations formulated during the Public Hearings Day (Monte-Carlo,Monaco, 28 February 2003). In addition, it takes into account the comments made at the 166th Session of the Executive Board of UNESCO (UNESCO House, 11 April 2003), and it also takes stock of the replies received to the Questionnaire concerning an Outline of this declaration.

WORKING PARTY ON HUMAN GENETICS(CDBI-CO-GT4:Working document on the applications of genetics for health purposes) Working document
on the applications of genetics for health purposes
This working document is made public under the responsibility of the Working Party on Human Genetics (CDBI-CO-GT4). The Council of Europe Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI), which agreed with the publication of the document, has not yet examined it. The document therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the CDBI. It is the outcome of the Working Party's discussions so far on applications of genetics for health purposes, with a view to the elaboration of an additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
This document is being made public, together with an explanatory note, to obtain comments from European non-governmental organisations, which will be taken into account for the elaboration of the draft additional Protocol. Comments should be submitted to the Secretariat by e-mail before 30 April 2003 to laurence.lwoff@coe.int or terry.journiac@coe.int.
Comments should be as precise and concise as possible. They should refer to specific provisions in the document or, if appropriate, make proposals for complementary provisions.

US SENATE: GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMATION ACT of 2005This link leads to the full text of the act that passed the US Senate(109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. 306) on Feb 17, 2005 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.The text of the bill is almost identical with that of the bill of 2003 that died in the House of Representatives !

OECD-website dealing with security issues and the biosciences The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) International Futures Program (IFP) has launched a new website dealing with security issues and the biosciences. The website provides a comprehensive information portal for general biosecurity information as well as more focused information on codes of conduct and regulatory oversight mechanisms for the life sciences.

One year ago, the European Commission invited a high level Expert Group under the chair of Eryl McNally to draft a report on the ethical, legal and social aspects of human genetic testing in research and healthcare applications.Their 25 recommendations are addressed to practitioners and decision makers at local, national and international level.

* Group members will present the recommendations,

* well-known specialists will introduce the discussion with their comments

* and participants are encouraged to actively engage in the debate.

Please find attached the 25 recommendations in English (copies in other EU languages will be available on the website)

Professor Schmucker von Koch and other Academy Staff are participating in peer group discussions at the following conference:

European Commission, DG Research

Directorate E: Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food

Conference on
Ethical implications of scientific research on bioweapons and prevention of bioterrorism

Brussels, 3 - 4 February 2004

Centre Albert Borchette,

Rue Froissart 36,

Brussels, Belgium

The European Commission, Research DG, Directorate E “Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food”, is organising, in the context of an EC funded research project on “Bioethical Implications of Globalisation” co-ordinated by Prof. E. Mordini, Centre for Science, Society and Citizenship, Rome, a conference on “Ethical Implications of Scientific Research on Bioweapons and Prevention of Bioterrorism” to be held in Brussels on 3-4 February 2004.

The Conference aims to bring together a multidisciplinary group of experts to discuss the ethical implications of scientific research on bioweapons and prevention of bioterrorism including issues such as risk communication, dual use technologies and protection of human subjects.

CONFERENCE ON ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON BIOWEAPONS AND PREVENTION OF BIOTERRORISM

BRUSSELS, 3-4 February 2004

9.30-10.00 OPENING:

Director Chris Paterman, DG Research,

Director Fernand Sauer, DG SANCO, (to be confirmed)

Prof. Emilio Mordini, Centre for Science, Society and Citizenship, co-ordinator of the EC funded research project on the Bioethical Implications of Globalisation.

10.00-10.30 Keynote address delivered by Mrs. Eryl McNally, Member of the European Parliament

The congress took place in the Palais du Congrès.
The organizing committee was cordially received by S.A.S. le Prince Souverain Rainier de Monaco who was then assisted by S.A.S la Princesse Caroline de Monaco.

There was also a banquett taking place in the Palais de Gouvernement for the scientists which was attended by the former French Prime Minister Messmer, and
a reception by S.A.S la Princesse Antoinette of Monaco for all congressmen taking place in the famous Hotel de Paris in Monte Carlo.

The congress set a highlight for future activities.

Summary:

Remerciements (Docteur E.REYMOND, a personal friend of the current French President Jacques Chirac)

Allocution de Son Altesse Sérénissime la Princesse ANTOINETTE DE MONACO

JUST IN: The book containing all the lectures and statements listed in the program below has just been published.
The publication was sponsered by DRESDNER BANK and BANQUE NATIONAL DE PARIS :
University and its Students. International Symposium of Students and Professors (edited by Severin Daum/Tomas Kruta),
650 th anniversary of Charles University. Prague: The Carolinum Press 2000 (ISBN 80-7184-933-2)
Please pay attention to the following information:

UNIVERSITAS CAROLINA PRAGENSIS

650 th ANNIVERSARY

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM OF STUDENTS AND PROFESSORS

UNIVERSITY AND ITS STUDENTS

PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC

September 9-12, 1998

Under the auspices of the Rector of Charles University

Prof.Dr.K.Maly, D.Sc.

Chairman:

Prof. S. Daum, M.D.

Secretary:

T. Kráta, M.D.

Symposium venue:

Faculty of Law of Charles University

Nám. Curieovych 7

116 40 Prague 1

Czech Republic

Date: September 9-12, 1998

Symposium languages: The official language of the symposium is English.

Several lectures will be presented also in German or French. Simultaneous translation into

DECLARATION IN DEFENSE OF CLONING AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH

The following declaration is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 17, Number 3.

Tuesday, 15 July 1997

We, the undersigned, welcome announcements of major advances in the cloning of higher animals. Throughout this century, the physical, biological, and
behavioral sciences have placed important new capabilities within human reach. On balance, these advances have contributed to enormous improvements in
human welfare. Where novel technologies have raised legitimate ethical questions, the human community has in general demonstrated its willingness to confront
those questions openly and to seek answers that enhance the general welfare.

The cloning of higher animals raises ethical concerns. Appropriate guidelines need to be developed that will prevent abuses, while making the benefits of cloning
maximally available. Such guidelines should respect to the greatest extent possible the autonomy and choice of each individual human being. Every effort should
be made not to block the freedom and integrity of scientific research.

No one has demonstrated a present capability to clone humans. Yet the very possibility that contemporary achievements may open a path toward cloning has
sparked a hail of protests. We view with concern the widespread calls to delay, defund, or discontinue cloning research which have come from sources as
disparate as President Bill Clinton in the United States, President Jacques Chirac of France, former Prime Minister John Major of Great Britain, and the Vatican
in Rome.

We believe that reason is humanity's most powerful tool for untangling the problems that it encounters. But reasoned argument has been a scarce commodity in
the recent flood of attacks on cloning. Critics have delighted in drawing parallels to the myth of Icarus and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, predicting terrible
consequences if researchers dare to press on with questions whose answers "man was not meant to know." Behind the most vituperative critiques seems to lie the
assumption that human cloning would raise moral issues more profound than those faced in connection with any previous scientific or technological development.

What moral issues would human cloning raise? Some religions teach that human beings are fundamentally different from other mammals - that humans have been
imbued with immortal souls by a deity, giving them a value that cannot be compared to that of other living things. Human nature is held to be unique and sacred.
Scientific advances that pose a perceived risk of altering this "nature" are angrily opposed.

Deeply rooted as such ideas may be in dogma, we question whether these should be used to decide whether human beings will be permitted to benefit from new
biotechnology. As far as the scientific enterprise can determine, Homo sapiens is a member of the animal kingdom. Human capabilities appear to differ in degree,
not in kind, from those found among the higher animals. Humankind's rich repertoire of thoughts, feelings, aspirations, and hopes seems to arise from
electrochemical brain processes, not from an immaterial soul that operates in ways no instrument can discover.

The immediate question raised by the current debate over cloning is, therefore, do advocates of supernatural or spiritual agendas have truly meaningful
qualifications to contribute to that debate? Surely everyone has the right to be heard. But we believe that there is a very real danger that research with enormous
potential benefits may be suppressed solely because it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. It is important to recognize that similar religious objections
were once raised against autopsies, anesthesia, artificial insemination, and the entire genetic revolution of our day - yet enormous benefits have accrued from each
of these developments. A view of human nature rooted in humanity's mythical past ought not to be our primary criterion for making moral decisions about cloning.

We see no inherent ethical dilemmas in cloning nonhuman higher animals. Nor is it clear to us that future developments in cloning human tissues or even cloning
human beings will create moral predicaments beyond the capacity of human reason to resolve. The moral issues raised by cloning are neither larger nor more
profound than the questions human beings have already faced in regards to such technologies as nuclear energy, recombinant DNA, and computer encryption.
They are simply new.

Historically, the Luddite option, which seeks to turn back the clock and limit or prohibit the application of already existing technologies, has never proven realistic
or productive. The potential benefits of cloning may be so immense that it would be a tragedy if ancient theological scruples should lead to a Luddite rejection of
cloning. We call for continued, responsible development of cloning technologies, and for a broad-based commitment to ensuring that traditionalist and
obscurantist views do not irrelevantly obstruct beneficial scientific developments.

The signers of the Declaration are Humanist Laureates of the International Academy of Humanism: